Skip to main content

It is upto the bank to recover money from guarantor or borrower: NCDRC

The national consumer commission has dismissed a man's plea filed against a bank which recovered from him the dues, borrowed by a person whom he had introduced to it, saying that "it is the choice of bank to recover money either from the guarantor or the borrower".

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice J M Malik, dismissed the complaint filed by Kerala resident R S Vasan against Canara Bank, while rejecting his contention that he was not a guarantor and that for the recovery, the bank should have first approached the family of the borrower who had died.

"It is well-settled that it is the choice of the bank to recover the money either from the guarantor or the borrower. It is abhorrent from the principles of law to say that the bank must first of all recover the money from the borrower and thereafter it can proceed against the guarantor," NCDRC said. It passed the order while hearing a revision petition filed by the bank against Kerala State Consumer Commission, which had directed it to pay Rs 1,49,698 to Vasan.

The district forum, too, had decided the case in Vasan's favour. NCDRC reversed both the orders passed by the lower foras. NCDRC, while rejecting Vasan's claim that he had no intention to be a guarantor, said that he had signed the blank papers at his own peril. "The complainant signed the blank papers, if any, with his open eyes and on his own volition. Even if he has signed the blank papers, he did it at his own peril," it said.

Vasan had told the district forum that he introduced C K Prabhakaran to the bank on June 22, 1996, which extended Rs one lakh to him (Prabhakaran) against immovable property. He said that he had no intention to be a guarantor or a surety for the overdraft facility given to Prabhakaran, but he was made to sign some blank papers. He said that Prabhakaran died on June 7, 2001, and the bank informed Vasan on June 22, 2003, that overdraft facility had been given on his (Vasan) surety and a sum of Rs 1,36,135.50 could be liquidated against his term deposit. Vasan, however, immediately replied denying his liability.

In the meantime, the bank issued another letter mentioning the amount due as Rs 1,45,799.30. Subsequently, it informed Vasan that the amount under overdraft had been adjusted against his term deposit. The district forum, however, had asked the bank to pay Vasan Rs 1,48,698 and also to pay Rs 1,000 as costs. The state consumer commission dismissed the appeal, filed by the bank against the forum's order, with Rs 5,000 as costs.

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-it-is-upto-the-bank-to-recover-money-from-guarantor-or-borrower-ncdrc-2017218

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more